United States of America Ex Rel. Herbert Cornitcher, H-2846 v. Alfred T. Rundle (Supt.)

Third Circuit

United States of America Ex Rel. Herbert Cornitcher, H-2846 v. Alfred T. Rundle (Supt.)

406 F.2d 773

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 18, 1969

Docket17375

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 406 F.2d 773 (United States of America Ex Rel. Herbert Cornitcher, H-2846 v. Alfred T. Rundle (Supt.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States of America Ex Rel. Herbert Cornitcher, H-2846 v. Alfred T. Rundle (Supt.), 406 F.2d 773 (3d Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The relator Cornitcher is now serving a four to eight year sentence in a Pennsylvania prison which was imposed following a jury trial in which he and two co-defendants were found guilty on indictments charging him with raping two women, carrying a concealed deadly weapon and conspiracy. The relator was represented at his trial by a privately retained attorney who is presently a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. No appeal was taken from the relator’s conviction. Relator, however, subsequently sought relief in a proceeding under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq., which was premised on his contention that he had been deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, in that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine a codefendant, whose statement, testified to by a detective, involved the relator. A lower Pennsylvania court denied post-conviction relief on its finding that there had been a waiver, and the Superior Court of that Commonwealth affirmed on appeal. Commonwealth v. Cornitcher, 211 Pa.Super. 710, 234 A.2d 223 (1967), allocatur denied, No. 470A Misc.Dkt. No. 15 (Pa.Sup.Ct. Jan. 3, 1969).

The relator then unsuccessfully petitioned the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus premised on the ground asserted in his Pennsylvania Post Conviction proceeding and this appeal followed.

On review of the record we find no error. The District Court’s Order denying the relator’s petition will be affirmed for the reasons so well stated in the Opinion of Judge Joseph S. Lord, III, 285 F.Supp. 625.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The relator Cornitcher is now serving a four to eight year sentence in a Pennsylvania prison which was imposed following a jury trial in which he and two co-defendants were found guilty on indictments charging him with raping two women, carrying a concealed deadly weapon and conspiracy. The relator was represented at his trial by a privately retained attorney who is presently a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. No appeal was taken from the relator’s conviction. Relator, however, subsequently sought relief in a proceeding under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq., which was premised on his contention that he had been deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, in that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine a codefendant, whose statement, testified to by a detective, involved the relator. A lower Pennsylvania court denied post-conviction relief on its finding that there had been a waiver, and the Superior Court of that Commonwealth affirmed on appeal. Commonwealth v. Cornitcher, 211 Pa.Super. 710, 234 A.2d 223 (1967), allocatur denied, No. 470A Misc.Dkt. No. 15 (Pa.Sup.Ct. Jan. 3, 1969).

The relator then unsuccessfully petitioned the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus premised on the ground asserted in his Pennsylvania Post Conviction proceeding and this appeal followed.

On review of the record we find no error. The District Court’s Order denying the relator’s petition will be affirmed for the reasons so well stated in the Opinion of Judge Joseph S. Lord, III, 285 F.Supp. 625.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 F.2d 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-herbert-cornitcher-h-2846-v-alfred-t-ca3-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack